[jason13]

I love the intellectual lengths people will goto to justify their own greed.

This is a classic argument you are making. It makes me richer to exploit workers. But if i don't exploit my workers than I will be denying my workers their economic right to be exploited.

So you see I am only exploiting my workers to help my workers, because my workers want to have the freedom to be exploited, really they want to be exploited, it makes them feel more free.

Wow I am such a nice guy. I am spreading freedom.

[lupin_sansei]

How is employing people exploiting them? (In the bad sense of the word "exploit") The employees freely agreed to come and work for you in exchange for a certain amount of money, and they are free to leave at any time.

If they were worth any more money than they were getting paid then they would change to a higher paying job.

[jason13]

Well this goes into the whole philosophical question of the word "freedom" and "free will"...

It all depends what you mean by the word "freely". But unless you are actually rich, you don't really have the freedom to not get a job. So I would not describe this as purely a contractual agreement entered into by parties freely.

[lupin_sansei]

But you could say also that the employer needs a worker, and also isn't really freely entering into the contract. Utter nonsense! Both parties freely enter into the agreement. You might not have the freedom not to have a job, but you do have the freedom to choose which job to take. That freedom means that nobody can pay you less then you are worth, else you'll leave. Therefore nobody employer can exploit you. (That is pay you less then you're worth.)

[jason13]

Since you define what someone is worth as what they are getting paid..you essentially stating a tautology.

However, I would also note that since what people get paid depends on the existance of Unions, and is also effected by the law and certain legal regulations. Then the value someone is worth changes depending on what the laws currently are.

So in any case I am in favor of trying to increase the worth of people.

(Not that this is really relevant, but most people who lead companies actually do not need their workers, they often can afford for the company to fail, and still live a comfortable life...)

[lupin_sansei]

"Since you define what someone is worth as what they are getting paid..you essentially stating a tautology."

I'm defining what someone's labour is worth as what employers are willing to pay them. (That may differ from what they are getting paid right now, but they can always change jobs.)

It might help for you to understand that "worth" is defined as what people will pay for something. It's subjective. There's no absolute value that someone should be paid in exchange for labour. It depends on what employers think they are worth,

"However, I would also note that since what people get paid depends on the existance of Unions"

False. Most people aren't in Unions, and the average wage has risen faster than the wage demands from unions. People get paid based on their worth to employers. (Productivity etc)

"So in any case I am in favor of trying to increase the worth of people."

The only way to increase the worth of people is to make them more productive. (Skills, investing in machinery etc.) If you force employers to pay them more you will just cause anyone not worth that amount to become unemployed.

"Not that this is really relevant, but most people who lead companies actually do not need their workers"

So why do these money grabbing capitalists employ them then? Wouldn't they make even more money by getting rid of them?

And you still haven't shown me how employing someone exploits them.

[jason13]

Wow, you did not comprehend a single word I wrote. Therefore this conversation is over.